MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           1 August 2000     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034003

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable conditions (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his ability to serve was impaired by his illiteracy, youth and immaturity, personal problems, and deprived background; that his average conduct and efficiency ratings and proficiency marks were good; that he received awards and decorations; that he was so close to finishing his tour that it was unfair to give him a bad discharge; that he has been a good citizen since discharge; that his record of absence without leave (AWOL) indicates only minor or isolated offenses; that when he got back from overseas he could not adjust to state-side duty; that when he tried to apply for a compassionate reassignment, he was unfairly denied; and, that his discharge was improper because the command did not follow the discharge regulations and that he was not discharged within the required period of time after enlistment.  The applicant has submitted an “OHA Psychiatric Review Technique Form” with his application indicating that he suffers from mental retardation, substance addiction disorder, and illiteracy 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 26 October 1972 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  The record also indicates the applicant achieved an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score of 36, (i.e., Mental Category of III/average learner).  He completed the 8th grade and enlisted with parental consent when he was 17 years old.  His enlistment options included: buddy basic training and assignment to the 8th U.S. Army Korea.

He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  He was promoted to private/E-2 upon completion of AIT.  In accordance with his enlistment contract, he was assigned to Korea on 22 March 1973. 

On 30 October 1973, while in Korea, he was promoted to private first class/E-3.

The applicant received an Enlisted Efficiency Report (DA Form 2166-4) covering the period beginning in April 73 – February 1974.  He was rated as “Excellent” in the categories of adaptability, initiative, responsibility, and duty performance.  He was rated as “Above Average” in his attitude and leadership.  The rater’s specific comments indicated that the applicant was considered to be a good wheel vehicle repairman and he was recommended for promotion ahead of his contemporaries.

On 1 March 1974, while in Korea, he was promoted to specialist four/E-4.

On 10 April 1974 he departed Korea in casual status en route to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

On 11 June 1974 he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for the possession of marijuana.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to private/E-3 (suspended), a forfeiture of $125 per month for 2 months, and 30 days extra duty (15 days suspended).

On 5 May 1975 the applicant went AWOL and remained so absent until he was apprehended and returned to military control at Fort Carson, Colorado, on 
7 December 1976.  

On 17 December 1976 the commander of the personnel control facility notified the applicant of his intent to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct – AWOL.

In a written statement, dated 17 December 1976, the applicant made the following statement regarding the reasons for his AWOL:  “I went to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on 25 October 1972.  Then I went to the 307 Signal Battalion at Wan Ju, Korea.  I went home on leave and I decided to stay home because I had a good job and my mother needs help with my crippled brother.  I had no good reason for enlisting in the Army.”  The applicant signed his statement.  

On 23 December 1976 the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge.  Thereafter, he was separated on 19 January 1977 with a UD.  He was credited with 2 years, 8 months, and 26 days active military service, and
548 days lost time.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. 

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.  There is no evidence to indicate that the command did not follow the discharge regulation.

2.  The Board notes the applicant’s current diagnosis of mental retardation and illiteracy.  However, the evidence of record does not substantiate the applicant’s contention that his ability to serve was impaired by mental retardation or illiteracy. The applicant indicated that he went AWOL because he found a good job and he wanted to assist his mother with his crippled brother.  

3.  The record does not support the applicant’s contention that youth, immaturity, and a deprived background impaired his ability to serve.  The record shows that the applicant adapted well to military life; that he successfully completed basic combat training and AIT; that he was promoted with his peers; and, that he was considered to be a successful soldier with an above average ability to lead.
 
4.  There is no evidence of record to substantiate that the applicant applied for a compassionate reassignment or that he was unfairly denied a compassionate reassignment. 

5.  There is no evidence to support that the applicant was not discharged within the required period of time after enlistment.  The applicant enlisted for a period of 3 years, however, at the end of his normal period of enlistment he was in AWOL status and remained in AWOL status for 414 days subsequent to his normal expiration term of service.  He was placed in excess leave status and expeditiously discharged upon his return from AWOL.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___dsj___  ___kak__  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034003	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000801	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19770119	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C14	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.7100.0000	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES        1.  	144.9301.0000	
2.  	144.9403.0000	
3. 	144.9405.0000	
4.	144.0100.0000	
5.		
6.